With respect to the view that remote purchasers should be protected (either on the basis of the notion of “ordinary course of business” or a combination of that notion with the principle of good faith), it was stated that it might inadvertently open the way to abuse, since a debtor could frustrate the rights of the secured creditor by selling an encumbered asset outside the ordinary course of its business to a party that would then sell it in the ordinary course of its business.
Con respecto a la opinión de que debía protegerse a los compradores remotos (ya fuera sobre la base del concepto de “giro ordinario del negocio” o de una combinación de este concepto con el principio de la buena fe), se advirtió que ello podía dar pie a abusos, ya que el deudor podía frustrar los derechos del acreedor garantizado vendiendo un bien gravado al margen del giro ordinario de su negocio a una parte que a su vez lo vendiera en el giro ordinario de su negocio.